TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The learned NFAC erred in passing the order dated 26 May 2022 based on surmise and conjecture without appreciating the facts in the matter. 2. Non-grant of Foreign tax relief 2.1 The learned NFAC has erred in not granting of foreign tax relief amounting to Rs.26,718 as claimed by the appellant in the revised Return of Income. 2.2 The learned NFAC ought to have appreciated that income of Rs.4,12,835 is doubly and the appellant being resident of India, taxes suffered in Sri Lanka on such doubly taxed income ought to be allowed as relief in terms of Article 23(2) of India-Sri Lanka Tax Treaty. 2.3 The learned NFAC has erred in not considering the Form 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and Ordinary Resident (ROR) of India during the A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee filed his return of income dated 31.06.2020 and filed revised return of income dated 30.03.2021, declaring revised total income of Rs.7,07,390/-, as against the income declared in the original return of income of Rs.6,69,620/-. The assessee was an employee of Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited (employer), a company incorporated in India. It is observed that the employer carried out a project in Sri Lanka, for which the assessee had visited Sri Lanka for a period of 159 days and the assessee was continued to be paid by the employer in India during the said period. The gross tax liability as per the revised return amounts to Rs.56,137/-. It is observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short), amounting to Rs.26,718/- as per the terms of Article 23(2) of India Sri Lanka tax treaty, for which FTC is to be allowed as per the provisions of section 90 of the Act read with Rule 128 of the Rules. 5. Subsequent to this, the assessee received intimation u/s.143(1) dated 20.12.2021 from CPC, Banaglore which has accepted the total income and tax liability as per the revised return of income. The assessee contends that FTC, amounting to Rs.26,718/- claimed by the assessee was not granted on the ground that the CPC could not verify the credits for tax payments made outside India. On this basis, a demand of Rs.5,464/- including levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act has been raised by the ADIT, CPC. As against the refund o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) and Sanjay Patil vs. The Assessing Officer (in ITA No. 189/SRT/2021 vide order dated 18.05.2022). It is observed that the assessee has claimed FTC as per section 90 of the Act r.w. Article 23(2) of India- Sri Lanka Tax treaty. The ld. AR contended that the assessee is entitled to claim FTC as per Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules, 1962, which lays down the procedure for the same. 10. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, contended that the assessee is not entitled to claim FTC as Form 67 was filed belatedly after the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Mur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r filing of return u/s. 139(1) and, hence, the lower authority have rejected the claim of the assessee. Though the decision cited by the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) in Muralikrishna Vaddi, Visakhapatnam (supra) by the co-ordinate bench has held that delay in filing of Form 67 disentitles the assessee to claim FTC as the said procedure is mandatory, we are inclined to peruse the decisions of the tribunal cited by the assessee in the case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna (supra). On similar facts, the co-ordinate bench has considered the delay in filing of Form No. 67 as only a procedural defects and has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissio....